After serving seven years behind bars, Chelsea Manning walked out of the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas today a free woman.

Manning, 29, was sentenced to 35 years in prison for leaking hundreds of thousands of secret government files to Wikileaks. The leaked military archives contained files such as diplomatic cables, videos, and PowerPoint presentations, and is considered to be one of the largest leaks of classified information in history.

President Barack Obama commuted the bulk of her remaining sentence–all but four months to be exact–in January, as one of his final acts in office.

Manning, who already has a Twitter account that she updated regularly while in prison, quickly acclimated herself to new forms of social media upon her release. She commemorated her “first steps of freedom” on her newly acquired Instagram account–the app was created in 2010, the same year she went to prison.

First steps of freedom!! . . #chelseaisfree

A post shared by Chelsea E. Manning (@xychelsea87) on May 17, 2017 at 6:39am PDT

She even went as far to celebrate her first post-prison meal, a greasy slice of pepperoni pizza.

So, im already enjoying my first hot, greasy pizza

A post shared by Chelsea E. Manning (@xychelsea87) on May 17, 2017 at 9:34am PDT

Over the years, Manning, who has had a Twitter account since 2013, has remained vocal about her imprisonment, transition, and politics.

In a short statement Wednesday, Manning said:

After another anxious four months of waiting, the day has finally arrived. I am looking forward to so much! Whatever is ahead of me is far more important than the past. I’m figuring things out right now — which is exciting, awkward, fun, and all new for me.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chelsea Manning is a Free Woman appeared first on Law Street.

Racial discrimination by law enforcement has been a long standing issue in the United States. However, in the last couple of years, beginning with the dire situation in Ferguson, Missouri and the mirror images in Maryland, Illinois, New York, and a number of other locations across the country, the public at large has become increasingly aware of the systemic abuse against minorities.

A small piece of victory was served for individuals experiencing systemic abuses by law enforcement as Daniel Holtzclaw, an Oklahoma City police officer, was sentenced to 263 years in prison on January 22, 2015. His trial commenced on November 2, 2015 and was highly criticized for having an all white jury. However, approximately one month before being sentenced, Holtzclaw was convicted by that jury for 18 out of the 36 counts for which he was charged. The sentence, which is to be served consecutively as opposed to concurrently, seeks to rectify the wrongs done to Holtzclaw’s 13 victims (ranging from a 17-year-old teenager to a 57-year-old grandmother), including four counts of first-degree rape and four counts of forced oral sodomy.

The frightening part–Holtzclaw had a strategy to his clearly calculated rapes and sexual assaults. He targeted black women in one of Oklahoma City’s poorest neighborhoods who he knew had criminal histories, predominantly drug and prostitution records, which he could leverage against them should they threaten to approach authorities for his abusive behavior. Which worked…until it didn’t.

Jannie Ligons, a 57-year-old grandmother of 12, was stopped at approximately 2 AM on June 18, 2015 driving through the poor neighborhood in which many of his other victims had been confronted. Holtzclaw made a huge mistake in assuming that Ligons was a resident of the neighborhood, had a low social status, and had reasons to fear the authorities. Quite the costly “mistake” if you ask me. Her testimony recounted the graphic and horrifying details following Holtzclaw’s stop. I do have to issue a warning, as it is graphic.

Returning home from a game of dominoes with a friend, Ligons was stopped by Holtzclaw who was ending his shift. Due to a broken driver-side window, Ligons was directed to the rear passenger side seat of the vehicle and was asked if she had been drinking or if there was anything in her vehicle that she was hiding. She denied possessing anything illegal or to have been drinking. Holtzclaw did not believe her. He demanded that she get out of her vehicle so that he could check her. Holtzclaw demanded that she lift her shirt, which she did, to reveal her stomach. After telling her that was not good enough as something could be hiding in her bra, he forced her to lift her shirt and bra and shone a light on her exposed breasts.

As she noticed Holtzclaw playing with his penis at this time, she heard him instruct her to stand up and pull her pants down. Leaving her underwear on, Holtzclaw shone the light in her private area and demanded she sit back down. She obliged, distressed, only to look up and see his penis in her face. “Please don’t do this…you’re not supposed to do this,” she begged as he forced himself into her mouth. Ligons thought he was going to kill her. He threatened to follow her home, but as she pulled into a driveway to do a U-turn, Holtzclaw took off unexpectedly.

Ligons called the police when she got home. When no one at the police station answered, she and her daughter drove to the station to file the assault. Ligons was taken to the hospital with Kim Davis, an officer of the Oklahoma City Police Sex Crimes Unit, and underwent a sexual assault medical forensic exam. The report filed by Ligons led the Sex Crimes Unit to an unsolved report, and ultimately, to the discovery of a number of victims subjected to Holtzclaw’s sexual abuses, assaults, and rapes.

Other women have recollected their experiences with Holtzclaw, depicting the clear fear for their lives while in his custody. A woman identified as “T.M.,” a known drug user and prostitute, was forced to perform oral sex in order to avoid jail and ended up screaming for her life when Holtzclaw drove her to an open park area, fearing rape and potentially, death. The GPS recorder on Holtzclaw’s police car matched T.M’s testimony.

Further, Holtzclaw violated police protocol for searches of females and even went so far as to touch the bare breasts of victims while conducting searches, stating that they needed to “just play by my rules,” in order to avoid further charges or jail time. Holtzclaw even proceeded to go to the home of one of the victims and harass her at home, while with her family, which ultimately led to the stalking charges against him. Several other victims reported that Holtzclaw entered their homes and raped them while inside. He even raped 24-year-old Sade Hill in her hospital bed as she was detoxing from a spout of intoxication.

As if the killing of innocent and unarmed young black men has not been a frightening and infuriating display of racial discrimination by police, the case against Holtzclaw uncovers an even more troubling layer of abuse–vulnerable black women of low socioeconomic status unable to defend themselves, particularly due to their criminal histories and fear of authorities. Minorities of low socioeconomic status appear to be dispensable scapegoats to law enforcement at this day in age and frankly, it is an unacceptable and outrageous display of power by those trained to protect and serve. While the citizens of the United States continue to protest, demand change, and incite much needed action, a little solace can be taken in the fact that individuals like Holtzclaw and those who abuse their authority and prey on people incapable of fighting sometimes get the cosmic dose of karma their actions deserve.

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Daniel Holtzclaw Sentenced to 263 Years in Prison appeared first on Law Street.

The prison system is meant to deter crime, provide public safety, and rehabilitate criminals. But today, the Supreme Court told us that too often that last aim is ignored in the case of juvenile offenders. The court ruled 6-3 to allow prisoners convicted of a crime they committed while they were juveniles to have their life without parole sentences reconsidered.

In a 2012 ruling, Miller v. Alabama, the Supreme Court barred “life without parole” sentencing for juveniles, but only for future convictions, affecting none of the currently imprisoned people, for the sake of preserving the “finality of conviction.”Today in Montgomery vs. Louisiana, the court had the rare effect of retroactively altering the sentences of inmates. The case, centered around Henry Montgomery, a man who shot and killed a deputy sheriff at the age of 17. Montgomery is now 69, and for his entire adult life has known nothing but the prison system.

#SCOTUS holds Miller’s prohibition on mandatory life w/out parole for juvenile offenders IS retroactive in cases of state collateral review

— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) January 25, 2016

Some states individually chose to adjust the sentences of convicted juveniles following the Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling. This means that the new retroactive ruling only affects the sentences of about 1,000 inmates out of the 2,341 people convicted as juveniles facing life sentences, according to a study by The Phillips Black Project. More than half of that population had already been allowed to seek reconsideration of their sentences, as long as they can prove that their “crimes reflected their transient immaturity.”

The entire course of this argument hinges on whether a life sentence should only apply to an incorrigible person–that is, one with no hope of rehabilitation–and whether a juvenile is capable of being incorrigible at a young age. Justice Kennedy wrote in his opinion that “prisoners like Montgomery must be given the opportunity to show their crime did not reflect irreparable corruption; and, if it did not, their hope for some years of life outside prison walls must be restored.” This ruling adds on to the ban on “life without parole” sentencing for juveniles unless the prosecutor can prove that the specific individual is beyond saving. While standards of incorrigibility vary by state, they typically focus on the accused showing repeated examples of behavior and no response to reprimands from authority.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SCOTUS Undoes “Life Without Parole” Sentences For Juveniles appeared first on Law Street.

In the span of four days–between October 30 and November 2–federal prisons around the country released 6,000 nonviolent prisoners. This marked the largest single prisoner release in the history of the United States. The decision was the result of the government’s growing desire to address the overcrowding within the prison system. An additional 40,000 convicts could also be released in the coming months as new, more lenient sentencing rules can be retroactively applied to them as well. Read on to see what led to the recent release and how it compares to similar releases in the past. Now that the government is starting to deal with an issue that has been building for decades, what will a continued response look like and how will the prison system change in the future?

Releasing Prisoners

In the Past

While the recent release of so many prisoners all at once has drawn a variety of reactions, including warnings of increased crime, this is not the first time that a large number of prisoners has been released. In 2011, the Supreme Court ordered the state of California to release 30,000 inmates due to overcrowding in the state’s prison system.

On top of this are the prisoners that are also released over the course of a year as well–the federal government releases up to 55,000 prisoners each year. However, this is only a small portion of the inmates set free, as many as 10,000 are set free each week.

This Release

The recent release was a long time in the making. The final decision came about following the advice of the U.S. Sentencing Commission. The commission lowered maximum sentences for people convicted of drug-related offenses. The change could then be applied retroactively, meaning if a prisoner was already convicted and serving a sentence they could apply for early release. Ultimately, the decision was up to federal judges who reviewed eligible cases and determined whether the person in question would be a threat if released back into society.

Like the process, the release itself was not as straightforward as it may seem either. Of the 6,000 inmates, approximately a third were undocumented immigrants. This group will not be released into the public, but will instead be detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which will begin deportation proceedings. Additionally, many of those who were released were already on parole or in half-way houses. On average, those being released already served nine years of their sentences and were only being released around 18 months earlier than expected. The video below details the recent release:

Current Issues

Overcrowding

One of the major reasons for releasing these prisoners is that the prison population is simply too big for the system to manage effectively. There are 698 prisoners for every 100,000 people in the United States, the second highest rate in the world. A 2014 estimate from the Prison Policy Initiative suggests that there are as many as 2.4 million people in U.S. prisons on any given day, including 1.36 million in state prisons. Perhaps most troubling are the findings of a Department of Justice report, which shows that there are nearly 71,000 children in residential placement facilities in February 2010.

In order to properly put this in perspective, it is necessary to look at the U.S. prison population in an international context. As the NAACP points out, the United States has about 5 percent of the world’s population, but it has 25 percent of the world’s prison population. Not only is the United States’ prison population disproportionately large, its racial makeup is also heavily imbalanced. Although Hispanics and African Americans make up approximately 25 percent of the total population, they make up close to 60 percent of all American prisoners.

While simply having a massive number of prisoners does not necessarily mean that the existing prisons are overcrowded, when you look at the concentration of these prisoners it becomes clear that overcrowding is clearly an issue for many states. In fact, California’s mass prison release in 2011 was due specifically to over-crowding.  There were so many prisoners that inmates were being packed into gymnasiums. The situation became so bad that the Supreme Court forced the prisoner release because it was literally a health crisis. California is not an isolated case. While it may be the most extreme example, as of 2014, 17 states had prison populations far above the capacity of their facilities. While overcrowding recently caused states to reconsider their justice systems, it also led to the rise of controversial for-profit private prisons.

Sentencing

Overcrowding is largely a product of the United States’ historically severe sentencing rules. The idea of being “tough on crime” swept the nation in the 1980s. Tough on crime policies continued through the 1990s and early 2000s and only now is the trend starting to reverse itself. The severity of these laws varied from state to state. California had some of the toughest policies, enacting a three strikes law in 1994 that created mandatory punishments for repeat offenders. In 2012, California voters passed Proposition 36, which amended the state’s constitution to limit the use of its three-strikes law.

These sentences are known as mandatory minimums. As the name suggests, these policies lead to mandatory sentences of a minimum length for particular crimes, removing much of the discretion that judges have in the sentencing process. According to Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM), “Most mandatory minimum sentences apply to drug offenses, but Congress has enacted them for other crimes, including certain gun, pornography, and economic offenses.” A U.S. Sentencing Commission report found that 14.5 percent of all offenders in 2010 were subject to mandatory minimum penalties–a total of 10,605 prisoners.

What’s Next?

While there are some who fear that releasing so many prisoners, especially at the same time, will lead to a surge in crime, the numbers suggest otherwise. In the California mass release, only auto thefts increased after 30,000 of the state’s inmates were released. Furthermore, a Stanford University study, which involved 1,600 prisoners released when California changed its three strikes law, found a remarkably low recidivism rate. Prisoners released after the three-strikes law changed had a recidivism rate of just 1.3 percent compared to 30 percent for regularly released inmates.

Not all laws are created equally–perhaps the most infamous is the differing penalties for crack cocaine offenses compared to the one for cocaine in its powder form. Originally, the sentencing ratio was 100:1–with those sentenced for crack-related offenses facing much longer prison sentences. While that was reduced to 18:1 with the Fair Sentencing Act in 2010, a disparity remains. The troubling part of this issue is that most people arrested for crack-related offenses were black while most of those who were arrested for cocaine possession were white–reinforcing the racial imbalance in American prisons.

Post-Release Questions 

Another major issue is the question of what former prisoners will do once they get out. A notable concern is recidivism–when a prisoner returns to prison for another crime after his or her initial release. This worry seems warranted in light of a 2005 study by conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)–57 percent were re-imprisoned after one year, 68 percent by year three, and 77 percent by year five.

It should be noted that the way the Bureau of Justice Statistics records its numbers may not be the best way to understand recidivism. In a recent study, researchers found that recidivism is actually much lower than what is reported. Rates found in the BJS studies likely overrepresent people who are re-arrested after being released from prison.  However, even if these new findings are taken into account, which emphasize that certain offenders have a higher risk of recidivism, the issue remains a notable problem for American prisons.

Moreover, for those who do avoid re-offending, life can be difficult once they leave prison. While there are certainly a number of programs and organizations in place, it is still hard for someone with a criminal record to find a job. In a 2008 study from the Urban Institute, only 45 percent of ex-cons had jobs eight months after leaving prison. The following video discusses what happens to prisoners if and when they can make it out of prison:

Conclusion

The recent release of so many prisoners has reignited old fears that the reintroduction of prisoners into society will lead to a wave of crime. However, the evidence from past releases calls this line of thinking into question. Too many people, especially those of color, face long prison sentences, putting significant strain on American prisons. The current system is also costing the United States an estimated $39 billion each year.

To effectively reduce the size of the American prison population, changes beyond releasing prisoners need to be made. While recent sentencing reform, which led to this prisoner release, is an important step toward reducing the American prison population, it will not solve the issue. In addition to reducing the number of prisoners, policymakers will also have to deal with helping inmates readjust to society when they are released.

Resources

Vox: The biggest prisoner release in U.S. History, explained

Time: What happened when California released 30,000 inmates?

NPR: What You Should Know About the Federal Inmate Release

Newsweek: The Unconstitutional Horrors of Prison Overcrowding

FAMM: What are Mandatory Minimums?

The Economist: America’s Prison Population

CNN: Roughly 6000 Federal Inmates to be released

ACLU: Fair Sentencing Act

National Institute of Justice: Recidivism

Business Insider: Getting a Job after prison

NAACP: Criminal Justice Fact Sheet

Washington Post: Prisons in These 17 States are Over Capacity

Huffington Post: For-Profit Prisons are Big Winners of California’s Overcrowding Crisis

Slate: Why do so Many Prisoners End up Back in Prison? A New Study Says Maybe They Don’t

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What A Massive Prisoner Release Means for the Criminal Justice System appeared first on Law Street.

James Holmes was found guilty of first degree murder last Thursday for the deaths of 12 people in the July 2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting. The insanity defense that his team tried proved unsuccessful, and Holmes will now be sentenced for his crimes.

Holmes faced two counts of first degree murder for each of the twelve victims killed during the shooting. The jury found him guilty on all 24 counts. The jury also found Holmes guilty of attempted murder on all of the 140 counts against him for the 70 people wounded in the shooting. Additionally, he was found guilty of one count of possession or control of an explosive or incendiary. He faced a total of 165 charges, a decision that took the jury 12.5 hours to reach. Now the same jurors are faced with the task of sentencing him to death. This process began yesterday. His attorneys are expected to raise his mental illness again during the penalty portion.

Holmes who had pleaded not guilty by reasons of insanity, but admitted to the killings, showed no reaction as the verdict was announced. His attorneys were pushing for him to be committed to a mental hospital for the rest of his life, while state prosecutors were seeking the death penalty.

Even though Holmes did not take the stand, the jury did hear from him via the 22 hours of recorded psychiatric interviews he had at both the Colorado Mental Health institute in Pueblo and at the jail where he is being held. Two defense psychiatrists testified that Holmes suffered a psychotic break the night of the murders and could not discern between right and wrong, but two-court appointed psychiatrists told the jury the defendant was mentally ill, but not insane. While those sound interchangeable, there’s actually important distinctions under the law.

In pleading not guilty by reason of insanity, James Holmes attempted to do something no accused mass shooter in America has done in more than 20 years–win a case with the insanity defense. Holmes faced long odds for a defense that studies show is raised in only about one percent of all felony cases nationally and successful in only about a quarter of those.

Mass shooters very rarely survive their crimes to face court charges. According to a database of American mass shootings in the last 30 years, suspects in only 19 of 61 mass shootings examined were arrested. Others either committed suicide or were killed during the shooting. Of those 19, only four, including Holmes, pleaded insanity.

The reason for the low success rate is the high bar that laws set for the insanity defense. In Colorado, it is not enough for defendants to be mentally ill. Instead, the law defines insanity as having judgment so impaired by mental illness that the defendant could not tell right from wrong. Given Holmes’ vivid plan, this did not appear to be the case.

The primary factor in determining insanity is the intensive mental health evaluations that a defendant pleading insanity is required to undergo. The judge overseeing the case this week ordered Holmes to be evaluated at the Colorado Mental Health Institute in Pueblo. After several hours of evaluations, it was determined that his insanity plea was not plausible.

Evidence shows that Holmes’ plan, to some degree, was thought out beforehand. Holmes bought a ticket 12 days before the July 19 showing, and walked into the theater screening of the “The Dark Knight Rises” like any other movie goer. He then walked out through a rear door, which he left propped open. Just after midnight, about 20 minutes after the movie began, he returned wearing a ballistic helmet, a gas mask, black gloves, and protective gear for his legs, throat and groin. A tear gas canister exploded in the theater, then gunfire erupted from an AR-15 rifle, a 12-gauge shotgun and at least one .40 caliber handgun. The shooting stopped with Holmes’ arrest outside the theater about seven minutes after the first 911 calls were made to police.

Given that evidence of his plan, it was not hard for members of the jury to believe that Holmes did not meet the bar for the insanity defense. “Look at the evidence, then hold this man accountable,” Arapahoe County District Attorney George Brauchler said. “Reject this claim that he didn’t know right from wrong when he murdered those people and tried to kill the others…that guy was sane beyond a reasonable doubt, and he needs to be held accountable for what he did.”

With the jury certain that Holmes does not fit the bill for the insanity defense, it is not clear where their decision will fall in terms of Holmes receiving the death penalty. As one of the largest mass murderers in American history awaits his fate, we will have to see what the jury ultimately decides.

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Guilty Verdict for James Holmes: Does the Insanity Defense Ever Work? appeared first on Law Street.

Early last week the Bureau of Justice Statistics revealed that for the first time since 1980 the federal prison population in the United States has dropped. In the last year alone, the federal prison population decreased by roughly 4,800. With new counts projecting the number of federal inmates to continue to fall by just over 2,000 in the next 12 months and by nearly 10,000 the year after, I ask the questions how, why, and what effect will this change have?

Over the past few years the Justice Department has revealed that crime rates have been dropping. Earlier this year, Attorney General Eric Holder aimed to change policies to reflect the belief that increasing the number of people behind bars does nothing to improve public safety. An example of such policies includes The Smarter Sentencing Act — which essentially seeks to eliminate mandatory minimum sentencing for defendants found guilty of first-time drug offenses — and the more recent Clemency Act, which seeks to release offenders from prison who were unfairly sentenced by mandatory sentencing guidelines. Holder has worked in the last year to reduce a prison population he says is costly and bloated. He was not wrong: in 2014 the country spent approximately $60 billion to incarcerate offenders.

Even as someone who has completed a masters in criminal justice, including a core required course in statistical management (which let’s be honest, was as horrific as it sounds), I still struggle to understand the relevance of the numbers the media is throwing at us. I agree that it is a real achievement that fewer people are being sentenced to time in prison, but I really want society to understand why it is such an achievement, and what this really means.

The decrease in prison population is certainly an incredible start to the potential success of community supervision and its benefits. The one thing these articles fail to point out is just how much further we have to go to protect us as a society, and those who enter into the system. You may be thinking at this point that I am out of my mind for considering the safety and well being of convicted offenders; however, the majority of individuals arrested and convicted are non-violent drug offenders. What the article praising the decrease in the prison population failed to acknowledge is that although certain convicted offenders will not be sentenced to prison, the conditions of their sentence lived in society carry a higher risk of future incarceration than if they were placed behind bars in the first place.

Just because these individuals are not physically locked behind bars does not mean they are not locked behind the transparent bars of social isolation. Rates of unemployment, difficulty securing housing, and loss of family are just some of the hurdles most of these individuals  contend with. Why? Because they have been stigmatized by society with their criminal label. Virtually everyone on community supervision is at risk of being detained or incarcerated upon failure to comply with the conditions of supervision. Would you be able to follow a list of conditions if you felt like no one supported you? In order to support alternatives to incarceration, we really need to welcome the culture of supervision and understand the positives it can bring us. Not only will we be spending less money on the safekeeping of these individuals, but intervention and supervision can be accurately given to each offender to prevent re-offenses, interrupt the cycle of crime in families, and shake up the social disorganization within communities.

Regardless of whether you believe crime is a choice, crime is inherited, or crime is learned, the solid facts are that crime happens. By locking individuals up without any guidance, or even attempting to work on understanding the cause, the likelihood of reoffending is just as high if not worse than it was before that person was put in jail. Legislators clearly have been able to understand the reality that sending people to prison does nothing for public safety, so now it is time they invest money into supervision agencies to aid offenders in the right way. In order for this to happen, well-trained staff, evidence-based programs, and support from others is essential.

It is essential we maintain a safe environment for everyone in our communities. The notable decrease in the overall American incarceration and crime rates is something that hasn’t happened in more than 40 years. This hopefully marks the start of a revolutionary change for the U.S. criminal justice system.

—

Hannah Kaye (@HannahSKaye) is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes.

Featured image courtesy of [Viewminder via Flickr]

Hannah Kaye

Hannah Kaye is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Incarceration Figures Drop, But Community Support is Essential to Public Safety appeared first on Law Street.

More police officers than ever before are being held accountable for misconduct as a result of increased public awareness, media pressure, and new technologies capable of documenting altercations in horrifyingly graphic detail. While the frequency of punishments has increased, however, victims and their families are starting to realize that the word “accountability” may not actually mean very much.

For many officers accountability can be considered little more than a slap on the wrist. Verbal or written reprimands, the loss of a few vacation days, or suspension are all standard fare punishments for police misconduct. In extreme cases involving excessive force, an officer may be put on paid leave, forced to retire (with full benefits), or fired.

For people like Mike Gomez, whose 22-year-old son was shot and killed by an Albuquerque police officer in 2012, these punishments are a far cry from justice. The officer who shot his unarmed, mentally ill son in the chest was put on paid leave and given $500 by the Albuquerque police union to cope with the stress of the shooting. Naturally this was very upsetting to the victim’s family; as Mike Gomez puts it, while officers get a bonus and a paid vacation for the killing, all the family gets is a funeral bill.

A report by the Cato Institute of Justice reveals that if excessive force complaints involving fatalities were prosecuted as murders, then “the murder rate for law enforcement officers would exceed the general population murder rate by 472%.” This statistic speaks for itself, but a part of the problem is that the consequences for unnecessarily ending someone’s life seem to fall on cities in the form of settlements rather than on the officers themselves.

For example, while the officer who shot Mike Gomez’s son was cleared of all charges, the city still decided to settle the wrongful death lawsuit filed by the Gomez family for $900,000 rather than go to trial, citing the move as the “best economic, legal and policy decision”.

To the Gomez family this is simply blood money and the only legal recognition that they will receive that the death of their son was unwarranted. The fact still remains that the man who shot him will never spend a day behind bars or face any legal consequences for the act.

Even having video documentation is no guarantee that officers will ever be brought to justice. A perfect example of this is an incident at UC Davis where Lieutenant John Pike was recorded using military-grade pepper spray at point-blank range on a line of seated protesters.

The iconic incident sparked international outrage and a cry for Lt. Pike and other members of UC Davis leadership to be removed immediately from the campus payroll. Two independent inquiries into the incident (summarized in a conjoined report) condemned Lt. Pike for needlessly assaulting the group of students, finding him culpable for other professional transgressions as well.

This report was the result of months of thorough investigation, based on intense review of video footage of the incident, interviews with multiple witnesses, and conducted by independent consultants and a panel of well-respected statesmen. Nonetheless, their findings did not bear any weight on whether or not Lt. Pike would keep his job or even if he would face any disciplinary measures. That was left solely to the determination of an internal affairs investigation conducted by the police department because in states like California, police officers’ rights are so extensive that they severely limit independent public review of police conduct.

What’s worse is the fact that their methods, findings, and any actions that resulted from the investigation are all secret. To this day we still don’t know if Lt. Pike was fired or able to retire with full benefits – all the university was allowed to disclose is that he is no longer employed at the school.

While it is no secret that being a police officer is a dangerous job, it is undoubtedly true that officers sometimes step outside the bounds of their authority, often at the expense of those in their care. While the majority of police officers conduct themselves in a way that befits their position of power, it is distressing that those who flagrantly disregard rules receive little more than a slap on the wrist for conduct that has ended lives, torn apart communities, and violated constitutional rights.

In most cases, even when the officer in question is found culpable, the only punishment he or she receives is the loss of employment. While some may argue that losing one’s livelihood is a sufficiently severe punishment for excessive force – and perhaps in certain instances it is – it is not an adequate response to the functional equivalent of murder.

From start to finish, the way that officers are investigated, prosecuted, and eventually punished needs to be reformed. If someone can go to jail for the rest of his life for stealing tools from a tool shed then it is absurd that most cases of police brutality do not even result in criminal charges. Police officers are meant to protect the law, not stand above it.

—

Nicole Roberts (@NicoleR5901) a student at American University majoring in Justice, Law, and Society with a minor in Mandarin Chinese. She has a strong interest in law and policymaking, and is active in homeless rights advocacy as well as several other social justice movements. Contact Nicole at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Steve Rhodes via Flickr]

Nicole Roberts

Nicole Roberts a student at American University majoring in Justice, Law, and Society with a minor in Mandarin Chinese. She has a strong interest in law and policymaking, and is active in homeless rights advocacy as well as several other social justice movements. Contact Nicole at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Families of Victims of Police Brutality Question Officer Accountability appeared first on Law Street.

The amount of prison time doled out by courts to perpetrators of non-violent, drug crimes are often excessively severe, sometimes more than 100 years in prison. In one particular case, a man was sentenced to a lifetime behind bars for possessing a bag with traces of cocaine. In another case, a man with no prior record is now serving a 25-year prison term for selling his pain pills to an undercover informant. These two individuals are just a few of the many serving years in prison due to harsh mandatory sentencing laws.

Keeping non violent criminals incarcerated for decades leads to overcrowded conditions and billions of taxpayer dollars. The mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses have led to prisons vastly exceeding their maximum capacity. The United States has seen a 500 percent increase in the number of inmates in federal custody over the last 30 years.

The goal of these harsh laws is to deter would-be criminals from committing crimes when they realize that they could spend for the rest of their lives behind bars. This plan sounds good in theory, but has failed in practice. Hosting them is not cheap; it costs around $50,000 to keep one person in prison for one year in California alone. Although America has only five percent of the world’s population, it hosts 25 percent of the world’s prison inmates.

The issue of overcrowded prisons is alarmingly prominent in the United States, as other countries have adopted more effective means of dealing with individuals who commit minor offenses. For example, in 2001, Portugal became the first European country to abolish all criminal penalties for personal drug possession, and since then many countries around the world have followed suit. Drug users in Portugal are also provided with therapy rather than prison sentences. Research commissioned by the Cato Institute found that in the five years after the start of decriminalization, illegal drug use by teenagers declined, the rate of HIV infections transmitted via drug use dropped, deaths related to hard drugs were cut by more than half, and the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction doubled.

Finally, the United States has realized the gravity of the situation and decided to take action. Recently, Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin and Senator Mike Lee introduced the Smarter Sentencing Act to reduce the number of harsh drug sentencing policies in the United States. Essentially, the goal of the Smarter Sentencing Act is to reserve the use of federal resources for the offenders of the most serious crimes. Lawmakers supporting this bill hope that it will cause judges to use less harsh punishments such as community service or drug therapy. Making these changes could save taxpayers billions in the first years of enactment alone.

Specifically, the Smarter Sentencing Act would amend the federal criminal code so that defendants without prior record who did not commit a violent crime receive a less severe sentence. The bill also aims to reduce the chance that prisons reach their maximum capacities and lower prison housing costs.

How would the Smarter Sentencing Act impact current laws?

Under current guidelines, a first-time drug offense involving at least 10 but not more than 20 grams of methamphetamine has a recommended sentence range of 27-33 months. Under the new guidelines, the same quantity of methamphetamine would have a sentence range for a first-time offense of 21-27 months.

Attorney General Eric Holder is urging lawmakers to fast track a solution to this problem, stating that “this over-reliance on incarceration is not just financially unsustainable. It comes with human and moral costs that are impossible to calculate.”

Because Democrats and Republicans agree that the extreme sentencing problem is a serious one, prospects are good that this bill has a chance for success. Both parties more or less concede that there is a problem when looking at the prison system in the United States. Former Vice Presidential Candidate Paul Ryan is one of the prominent conservatives expressing his support for reform of current mandatory minimum sentencing laws.

I think we had a trend in America for a long time on mandatory minimums where we took away discretion from judges. I think there’s an appreciation that that approach has some collateral damage—that that approach is missing in many ways…I think there is a new appreciation that we need to give judges more discretion in these areas.

-Paul Ryan

The push to pass the Smarter Sentencing Act is gaining momentum, as almost a year has passed since its introduction in the House in October 2013. Hopefully, with continued support for this legislation, it will soon become law and alleviate the growing problems associated with extreme mandatory minimum drug sentences.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Barnellbe via Wikimedia]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Are We Nearing the End of Failed Mandatory Minimum Sentences? appeared first on Law Street.

The world heard about Judge G. Todd Baugh earlier this year when he sentenced a 47-year-old teacher to 31 days in prison for the rape of Cherise Morales. At the time of the assault, Morales was fourteen. She committed suicide before the trial. The sentence was controversial, to say the least. The Montana Attorney General’s office appealed it because it did not meet the state’s mandatory minimum sentencing laws.

Now, Judge Baugh is back in the news for another inappropriate sentence. He was presiding in the sentencing of a man named Pacer Anthony Ferguson. Ferguson is a former felon who has been in and out of jail since he was a teenager. When he was thirteen, he released the emergency brake on a train that rolled down the tracks and killed a man. He had once appeared before Judge Baugh in a felony robbery charge previously in 2003.

The 27-year-old Montana resident beat up his girlfriend in 2012. He punched her repeatedly in the face, fracturing her skull in three places. Her injuries were so severe that a surgeon had to implant a permanent mesh titanium plate in her face. She racked up about $3500 in medical bills. She testified that she is still in pain from the incident, and still has double vision in some instances.

The case was a jury trial, and the jury believed her. Ferguson was found guilty of misdemeanor assault. The prosecution had also charged him of felony aggravated assault, and felony witness tampering, although he was acquitted on those charges.

So the case fell before the embattled Judge G. Todd Baugh for sentencing. Unlike in his last controversial case, he did take advantage of the maximum possible sentencing. He gave Ferguson six months in jail. He also ordered that Ferguson pay for his victim’s hefty medical bills.

And then Judge Baugh added something else to the sentence. He required that Ferguson write out the phrase “boys do not hit girls” 5000 times. He also asked that Ferguson mail the assignment to him once he had finished, but no later than May 23rd, 2014.

Now technically it is a judge’s discretion to choose the punishment, as long as it doesn’t qualify as cruel and unusual, or break any minimum or maximum sentences dictated by the state. For example, in 2008, a Cleveland judge had to sentence a slumlord who had been convicted of breaking multiple building codes. He sentenced the man to live in his own dilapidated house for six-months.

But I think we can all agree that this was a very weird sentence. I’ve never heard of anyone over the age of 13 who has been required to write lines as a punishment. I also don’t know that I’ve ever heard of anyone asked to write lines in real life–the example that comes most quickly to mind is Bart Simpson from “The Simpsons”.

There is a sick kind of beauty to Judge Baugh’s punishment. Every day that he works on writing out those lines, Ferguson will be forced to remember what he did to his girlfriend. Judge Baugh is a controversial judge, no doubt. And I slammed him for the rape case earlier this year as much as anyone else. But I do have to give him credit for the punishment he gave to Ferguson. It’s unusual, but it’s certainly not cruel. It’s a good sentence for a horrible crime.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Chris Potter/StockMonkeys.com via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Montana Judge Gets Creative in Sentencing appeared first on Law Street.

The United States will be able to report a lower number of executions in 2013. Thirty-nine people were executed in nine different states, a 10% reduction from 2012. Twenty-three of those executions took place in just two states–Florida and Texas. To put this in context, in 1999, there were 98 people executed for their crimes. In addition, eighty new death sentences were handed out, which is a dramatic shift from 315 just 19 years ago.

There has also been a slow but perceptible trend of death penalty abolition on the state level. There are now 18 states and the District of Columbia that have abolished the death penalty. Six of these states have done so since 2007.

So, why? Why are we seeing a reduction in executions?

There a few different viable answers. The first is a declining availability of the drugs used in lethal injection. The vast majority of executions in the United States are done by lethal injection, although there are occasionally exceptions, and some states still allow methods such as firing squads or hanging.

But the states that intend to carry out death penalty sentences by lethal injection have run into a problem. Most of the drugs used come from European-based companies, and in 2011, the European Commission put extremely tight regulations on the import of those drugs. Some European drug companies, such as Danish-based Lundbeck which produces one of the most efficient and popular drugs for use during a lethal injection, flat out banned its use during executions. The death penalty has been abolished in all European states with the exception of Belarus.

As a result, states are scrambling to find a way to carry out lethal injections. Some states have experienced with drug cocktails, and others use untested drugs. According to Richard Dieter, Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center, “the states are scrambling to find the drugs. They want to carry out these executions that they have scheduled, but they don’t have the drugs and they’re changing and trying new procedures never used before in the history of executions”. Some lawsuits have alleged that this experimentation could be considered cruel and unusual punishment and has led to stays on executions in the state of California, among others.

Another proposed reason for the drop in executions is the discovery of evidence that proves the innocence of many people who had been previously executed. Improved forensic technology and DNA testing show that trials do not always result in justice. Groups such as the Innocence Project attempt to exonerate people who have been convicted of crimes, and since 1989, there have been 311 post-conviction exonerations based on DNA evidence alone. Eighteen of those people were awaiting their executions on death row.

Finally, the trend may be attributed to a number of other reasons. Part of it may be moral–the US stands essentially alone among its allies in its use of the death penalty. Another reason may be that most violent offenders die in prison anyways, which makes prosecutors and judges less likely to push for it.

Whatever the reason for the diminished use of the death penalty over the last few years, it will be interesting to see if it sticks. If those who attribute the shift to the inability to get the appropriate medications are correct, we should see an uptick in executions as that issue is resolved. If it’s more about the moral constraints, maybe executions will continue to lessen. Either way, capital punishment in the US will change.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [CACorrections via Wikipedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is the US Done With the Death Penalty? appeared first on Law Street.

Joseph Hall’s life to date can be summed up in one word: tragedy. This January, at 13, Hall was  convicted in the 2011 murder of his father, Jeff Hall. This October, Hall received his sentence—approximately 10 years in a juvenile detention facility.

Joseph Hall was born into an abusive household with a neo-Nazi father and a mother who may have done drugs while her son was in utero. The Halls divorced when Joseph was very young, but the custody battle over him and his younger sister waged for years. Court filings during these proceedings indicate the extreme instability in the young boy’s life and a psychologist he saw as a boy determined that he had most likely been sexually abused. As a boy, he had some learning and developmental issues, such as ADD and PTSD. There were also instances in which he exhibited violent and inappropriate behavior towards other students. As a result, he was kicked out of a few different schools. Eventually he was homeschooled by his father, who had only completed 11^th grade himself.

Jeff Hall was a man with extremist beliefs. He was a part of the “National Socialist Movement,” or NSM, a neo-Nazi organization that has been labeled a hate group by institutions such as the Southern Poverty Law Center. They refer to themselves as a “white civil rights union.” They are active in the area in which the Halls lived: Riverside, CA. Riverside is located fairly close to the Mexican-American border, and is about 50% Hispanic. The city also had a very high unemployment rate—about 15%. Racism, desperation, and demographical changes create a fertile ground for a hate group like NSM. Jeff Hall used to take Joseph with him on “patrols” of the border when the boy was as young as 9. He taught his son how to operate a sophisticated gun with night-vision and a scope. He taught his son how to hate.

In addition to his position as a rising leader in the Riverside neo-Nazi movement, Jeff Hall was a neglectful and abusive father and husband. The house in which the family lived was full with empty beer cans, and according to police officers at the scene, multiple rooms smelled like urine. Joseph reported to the police that his father had recently broken a glass on his stepmother Krista, who he referred to as his mother. Evidence from Jeff’s phone shows that he was cheating on Krista and that the two had a rocky relationship probably headed for divorce. Joseph also claimed that his father had threatened to kill the family by setting a fire while they were all asleep.

The story about what exactly happened that night is shaky at best, but one thing is certain. After his father passed out on the couch, Joseph took the family’s loaded .357 and shot his father in the head. At times, Joseph has said that he just had the idea to scare his father the way his father scared Joseph and his siblings. He hoped maybe that would put an end to the abuse. He talked about seeing an episode of Law and Order: SVU in which a boy killed an abusive family member and was let off on the grounds of self-defense. At the same time, he didn’t seem to know exactly what he had done. He asked a police officer, Officer Foster, on the scene, “do people get more than one life?”; Officer Foster also stated, “he was sad about it. He wished he hadn’t done it.” During the trial, other possible stories also came out, such as the defense’s claim that Krista actually encouraged him to kill Jeff.

There’s no way to know exactly what happened that night. Quite frankly, it doesn’t matter. The conditions that put a 10-year-old boy in this position are significantly more important than the child’s motivations. The debate of nature vs. nurture is very important in this case. If Joseph Hall had been born into a more stable environment, would he still have the same kind of violent impulses? We can’t possibly know, we can just try to prevent this from ever happening again.

Joseph was found guilty in January of murder. This October, he was sentenced to juvenile hall for what will amount to the next ten years. (He was sentenced for longer, but you cannot remain in juvenile detention for more than 10 years.) He will be in the system with older, violent, children. He will have limited interaction with his family. Despite his defense team’s fight to place him in a group home or other institution that would be able to provide him with care and help that he needs, he will be in a juvenile institution for the next decade.

The prosecutor on this case, Riverside County Chief Deputy District Attorney Michael Soccio, summarized this case best when he pointed out that it was less about blame and more about finding the right thing to do for Joseph. Soccio did believe that Joseph was dangerous and was guilty, but also recognized that how the next 10 years will determine whether Joseph can rise out of the tragedy into which he was born. After the conviction, he actually went over and apologized to the boy. He told him to be strong, but that, “you’re going to be in some places now that people are going to want you to be tough, and you’ve got to try to resist the worst part of being tough.”

There’s no winning this case. There’s no good side, no silver lining. There’s just a sad young boy who has been mistreated his entire life. The best that Joseph can hope for is that he is placed in a facility that is instructive, that provides structure his family claims he needs, and is filled with people who truly try to help him. But even if juvenile detention does work out for him, he will still leave as a young man who killed his father at 10. He will be a young man who was imprisoned his whole life, albeit it in different ways.  Again, Soccio put it better than I could hope to: “depending on where the courts puts him, he’s either going to be a predator or prey.”

There’s no winning this case, but maybe there’s hope for the future. Maybe this will spark a conversation about the awful juvenile judicial system in this country where a child must decide whether or not to be predator or prey. Maybe we’ll talk about gun control, and the ramifications of having a loaded gun in a house of angry, abused children. Maybe we’ll talk about the abuse inherent in exposing a child to a hate group. And maybe, just maybe, we’ll be able to prevent a tragedy like Joseph Hall from ever happening again.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Brian Stansberry via Wikipedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Sad Story of Joseph Hall appeared first on Law Street.